It is astonishing that Gizmodo would pay $5000 for a device and NOT know or realize it came to their attention from anything other than nefarious means. Even if they didn't know it was stolen, it's still tabloid blogging as far as I'm concerned.

It's a good one, but I call HOAX. Apple doesn't do flat, and they don't do obvious seams. Gizmodo is many things, Apple fanbois is one of those things. They are having a good time with this one!

The thing is way too ugly to be a production model.

And there's no real reason for a software engineer to have a prototype which includes the final case. My guess is that the ugly case is a generic iphone 4.0 prototype case - one that they give to everybody who needs the real guts, but doesn't need a real case.

I don't understand why, if a software engineer needs to take a prototype into the field, Apple would give him one with the final case on it. Special prototypes for the non-design departments makes a whole lot more sense.

They have been working on the guts for years. A standard prototype case to hold evolving prototype guts makes sense to me.

Whether or not there's a legal case against Gizmodo, I'm guessing this will cost them substantially more than 5 grand. The meter of the lawyer they have on retainer is probably spinning pretty fast today.

I admit to being a Fanatical Moderate. I Disdain the Inane. Vyizderzominymororzizazizdenderizorziz?

Whether or not there's a legal case against Gizmodo, I'm guessing this will cost them substantially more than 5 grand. The meter of the lawyer they have on retainer is probably spinning pretty fast today.

Whether or not there's a legal case against Gizmodo, I'm guessing this will cost them substantially more than 5 grand. The meter of the lawyer they have on retainer is probably spinning pretty fast today.

It has made them an incalculable amount of profit already.

Lots of people have gone to their site who were unfamiliar with them previously. They are now national news. Everybody, including AI, is cashing in on this story for all that it is worth, but Gizmodo is the one getting the largest benefit.

I don't understand why people are still trying to push this position. Apple has contacted Gizmodo asking for its return. This is not in doubt. While the case may well not be the shipping item, there is absolutely no doubt that this is an Apple device. The specs uncovered in the tear-down make it unlikely to be a previous-gen iPhone.

I cannot believe that people are still believing this is the real deal. Either the whole thing is a fake, or Apple has finally discovered viral marketing. Unreal that you'd expend 2 joules of energy armchairing this, but I guess Apple can always count on the fans to believe everything they say, even when they make it look like they're not the ones saying it.

Gizmodo should have never released a story about an Apple device that was a prototype and unannounced as yet. They deserve whatever is coming their way soon, that's if Apple actually pursues any legal action against this unprofessional blog site. I am glad the engineer was not terminated, and they should not have involved his identity at all, talk about being terrible. I never visited that site, and never will, their Microsoft's lackeys and I like to stay away from drivel websites like that.

I know of no professional ethics in journalism which prohibit the reporter from divulging secret information.

That's basically what journalism is all about. Remember the Pentagon Papers? Watergate?

Publishing secrets information which is of value to the readers is the first responsibility of a journalist. It is not a breach of ethics.

Ever hear of Valerie Plame? I'm thinking no.

Journalists don't have a right to publish anything they want.

They are also typically follow rules about publishing information only from creditable sources, and in the case of anonymous sources, protecting them from harm. You mentioned Watergate yet didn't mention Deep Throat, an anonymous source.

There is also a fine line between "value to the readers" vs. actually harming someone. Newspapers typically don't publish the names of victims of certain types of crimes because of ethics rules like this.

Unfortunately we live in a blog and twitter era where it's ok to publish every bit of information without any regards to the consequences.

The finder has a call number proving they tried to return it, and the phone provided no info on it's owner since it was disabled.

I hope you represent yourself in court someday. You'll be hilarious.

I quoted California Penal Code Section 485. However do some research in California common law and you'll discover some interesting case precedents (see below).

Before the phone was disabled, they found out the guy's name and were able to look him up on Facebook. Even without doing so, they should have turned it over to the bar owner or to the local police station.

What they should NOT have done is sold the phone.

What Gizmodo should NOT have done is purchase the phone. They really should NOT have taken the phone apart.

There's case precedence of being found guilty for receiving stolen goods where the defense argued that the goods were purchased in order to return them for the reward. Sorry, it doesn't work that way in California.

I think this is one area of law where the law goes beyond what a lot of people think in terms of what is right and what is wrong. Too many people think "finders keepers" is morally and legally correct. It's certainly not the latter in California.

And yes, I won't be representing myself in criminal court, but I would suggest that people understand that in California:
If you find lost property, don't think you can do with it what you want. If you take possession of it, you take responsibility for it. Part of that responsibility is returning it to the owner. This means taking it to the management of the place where it was found or to the local police station.

I quoted California Penal Code Section 485. However do some research in California common law and you'll discover some interesting case precedents (see below).

Before the phone was disabled, they found out the guy's name and were able to look him up on Facebook. Even without doing so, they should have turned it over to the bar owner or to the local police station.

What they should NOT have done is sold the phone.

What Gizmodo should NOT have done is purchase the phone. They really should NOT have taken the phone apart.

There's case precedence of being found guilty for receiving stolen goods where the defense argued that the goods were purchased in order to return them for the reward. Sorry, it doesn't work that way in California.

I think this is one area of law where the law goes beyond what a lot of people think in terms of what is right and what is wrong. Too many people think "finders keepers" is morally and legally correct. It's certainly not the latter in California.

And yes, I won't be representing myself in criminal court, but I would suggest that people understand that in California:
If you find lost property, don't think you can do with it what you want. If you take possession of it, you take responsibility for it. Part of that responsibility is returning it to the owner. This means taking it to the management of the place where it was found or to the local police station.

I don't see anything that suggests Gizmodo bought the device with non intention of handing it back to Apple. I can see a case for Giz in which they bought the device specifically to verify it was legit, keep it from being lost forever and to return it to Apple if they could prove it was in fact their property and not an elaborate hoax. I also know of no law that says if you find something you are forbidden to play with it or photograph it. It's clear Giz didn't photograph or detail the specifics of the internal chips. This may have been the limit their lawyers told them not to cross.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

You guys are jawing on and on about legal this and legal that... well, here's a clear cut case of thievery! (from Gizmodo none the less...)

Thief Steals Man's iPad and Pinky Finger

Bill Jordan's recent iPad purchase turned nightmarish, in one of those delightfully grotesque ways that local news affiliates thrive on: a thief grabbed his shopping bag, tugging so hard that he took most of Jordan's little finger with him. Gross.

They are also typically follow rules about publishing information only from creditable sources, and in the case of anonymous sources, protecting them from harm. You mentioned Watergate yet didn't mention Deep Throat, an anonymous source.

There is also a fine line between "value to the readers" vs. actually harming someone. Newspapers typically don't publish the names of victims of certain types of crimes because of ethics rules like this.

Unfortunately we live in a blog and twitter era where it's ok to publish every bit of information without any regards to the consequences.

You are actually comparing this to publishing information that is covered by national security and treason laws?

Ethics rules are not laws. Some newspapers do release names of victims, some do not.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro.

Those resposibilities are to Apple and not Gizmodo, Cult of Mac, Mac Rumors & 9to5 Mac. These sites are despicable for what they tried to do.

We are all capable of mistakes and, like Wil Shipley said, there's another circle of hell which these people belong to.

he made a mistake, he is responsible for the consequences.

But, let's ask, who the hell are you to say what Giz can and cannot publish? maybe you missed the internet today, but this is huge, international news. And sometimes, just sometimes, in big media stories, the people associated with the news are actually name. heaven forbid. They should burn in hell Despicable my ass.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro.

Damn, what a mess. I hope we hear something about the new iPhone soon, now that the cat's out of the bag. This has gone beyond the normal rumor mill and vie been hearing from people who never check Apple sites about the "new iPhone". Sales are gonna plummet. Prolly not more than usual given the upcoming refresh, but it'll start sooner since the announcement basically got pushed up to now.

I don't understand why people are still trying to push this position. Apple has contacted Gizmodo asking for its return. This is not in doubt. While the case may well not be the shipping item, there is absolutely no doubt that this is an Apple device. The specs uncovered in the tear-down make it unlikely to be a previous-gen iPhone.

Where did you see this 'email', think about it. And as for the specs, let's see.... front facing camera, hi-res screen, replaceable battery....lol! This is just a laundry list of every pundits iPhone dreams. Get real folks.

It is astonishing that Gizmodo would pay $5000 for a device and NOT know or realize it came to their attention from anything other than nefarious means. Even if they didn't know it was stolen, it's still tabloid blogging as far as I'm concerned.

It is obvious to every man and his dog that they knew exactly what they were doing and what was going on.

I'm not really sure why they wouldn't photograph the logic board or mention the chips running. My best guess is Gizmodo is just being cautious.

While you might be right... here's my spin... You had to know Gizmodo under normal circumstances would have dissected the crap out of that device and photographed each and ever mm of its interior contents.

They didn't...

Why? Perhaps as you say they were being cautious... but my though is this.. they have legal counsel (I certainly hope) and they had to know you can't 'partially rob a bank'. Only stealing the coins, singles and fives as well as the give-away pens and lollypops will get you the same legal treatment had you stole everything but the tellers chairs from the place.

They posted photos (even just one) and if COULD be enough to convict on one of the CA 'trade secrets' laws. MAYBE ... I'm no lawyer and I am not coming down one way or the other as to the guilt or innocence of Gizmodo.

So that being said, perhaps Gizmodo did (as I speculated above) photograph the SHIT out of the internals and then had lawyers meet and discuss the return of the property and the possible repercussions Apple could pursue and copies of those 'whats hiding under the shielding' photos were also given to Apples legal counsel and a 'understanding' was hammered out.

So long as those photos remain locked up our 'business' is formally concluded.

Yea maybe a little too cloak-n-dagger but it does answer all the questions...

- Why didn't GIZ take more internal photos!??!! (THEY DID)
- Why didn't GIZ tell us more about the internals!??! (THEY NEEDED TO HOLD BACK)
- Why didn't GIZ publish those photos (if they did take them)... (THEY WERE BEING USED AS LEVERAGE)

Now some might scream thats bribery and maybe it is... but GIZ had nothing to loose.. if Apple said SCREW YOU we are going after you with both barrels loaded. Then GIZ could then post the more revealing internal pics and make as much money as they possibly could...

Hey if Apple was gonna go after them anyway additional pics wouldn't make things any more lawbreaking... Back to my bank robbery analogy, if stealing 999.99 or 9.999,999.99 is still going to bring the same penalty then go for it. I think in most/all cases robbing a bank is a federal offense and the only thing that might reduce or increase the possible jail time is having deadly weapons (hidden or not) and of course if you injure or kill someone in the process of robbing the bank (hostages etc etc etc).

I for one am starting to believe that the 'slideshow' ended where it did as a 'get out of jail free' card and Apple accepted the terms.

Other readers are scoffing at your comparison, but I think it's valid. While national security secrets and Apple secrets are not equally important, divulging them is illegal in both cases, even though they're not both on the same place in the spectrum. It's like a beating and murder are both illegal, even though they're not on the same place of that spectrum. Some crimes warrant a month in jail and some warrant life without parole. I don't hear anyone saying the Gizmodo folks should be locked up for life, but perhaps a month would get their attention?

It is beyond dubious that Gizmodo would have paid that much money for a device if it did not reasonably think that it was anything other than a real prototype that belonged to Apple. Further, the fact that it was remotely wiped provided compelling evidence that it was in fact stolen.

However, in addition to the legal issues involved with buying stolen merchandise (which are in effect regardless of whether the buyer knows the goods are stolen or not), Gizmodo also faces legal consequences under California's Uniform Trade Secrets Act. ...

Apple Insider's article has the underlaying tone of condescension. They even go to the trouble of including the Uniform Trade Secrets Act to pound the point home that Gizmodo was wrong.

Yet, Apple Insider found no problem in displaying those very same photos and video that purport to violate the Act in no less than 3 articles of their own.

It is obvious to every man and his dog that they knew exactly what they were doing and what was going on.

First of all...

Go back and read the stories from the last 3 or 4 days....

- The VALIDITY of the photos first presented were VERY MUCH in question

- Gizmodo could have sufficient doubt that this was an ACTUAL internal Apple prototype.

- Given the number of other times this has happened to Apple (NONE) along with the number of 'iPhone Clones' (MANY, MANY, MANY) Gizmodo could actually be all but convinced it WASN'T Apples property.

- The 'story' told to Gizmodo wasn't in any way provable at the time they were told it. Was it really found in a bar near Apple?!?! or was it purchased cheap off the streets of chinatown and Gizmodo was in the process of being scammed?

- Gizmodo rolled the dice and purchased the phone for $5,000.00.. Now think about that for a second, if YOU had your hands on a top-secret unreleased Apple iPhone would ANY of you sell it for $5,000 bucks?!?! Do any of you reading this REALLY think thats all the device was worth?!?!

- Gizmodo now purchases this still unknown device for $5k (chump change if its the real deal) and since they now 'own it' they proceed to take it apart and realize they DO have a REAL Apple iPhone PROTOTYPE! (first time in, I can't even count the years this has happened!!)

- Giz takes some photos and reports on (some) of its findings and contacts Apple to return the device.

I'm not even about to play 'lawyer' and especially not 'CA lawyer' but making a case that Gizmodo didn't know to any great degree of certainty WHAT the device was or even WHERE it really came from should NOT be all that difficult.

Lets face it, prior to this week if I came up to you and said I found this 'odd' iPhone on a barstool in a tavern located near Apple's HQ wanna buy it for 5 grand?!?! You'd laugh your ass off and tell me to take a hike.

It is astonishing that Gizmodo would pay $5000 for a device and NOT know or realize it came to their attention from anything other than nefarious means. Even if they didn't know it was stolen, it's still tabloid blogging as far as I'm concerned.

Lets ask this another way, If someone WAS selling an honest to goodness iPhone 'prerelease phone' do you REALLY think they'd only be asking $5,000.00 for it?

Or

Did this have a pretty HIGH probability of being a 'mildly expensive' scam perpetrated on Gizmodo?

Lets face it...

Someone selling a device that is said to be an Apple iPhone prototype for $5,000.00...

ESPECIALLY given the frequency of this kind of thing happening in the past... (near zero)

- Is this a CRAZY GOOD DEAL that MANY would pay 10x+ as much to get their hands on.

__ OR __

- Is this a hoax that come tomorrow we'll regret wasting $5,000.00 on but we'll still have some fun tearing it apart and showing off to be the worthless fake that it is. Which if done the right way could still bring us quite a few extra page views... "HEADLINE: Gizmodo duped out of $5 grand on a worthless Chinese knockoff details and pics to follow!!!

While you might be right... here's my spin... You had to know Gizmodo under normal circumstances would have dissected the crap out of that device and photographed each and ever mm of its interior contents.

They didn't...

Why? Perhaps as you say they were being cautious... but my though is this.. they have legal counsel (I certainly hope) and they had to know you can't 'partially rob a bank'. Only stealing the coins, singles and fives as well as the give-away pens and lollypops will get you the same legal treatment had you stole everything but the tellers chairs from the place.

They posted photos (even just one) and if COULD be enough to convict on one of the CA 'trade secrets' laws. MAYBE ... I'm no lawyer and I am not coming down one way or the other as to the guilt or innocence of Gizmodo.

So that being said, perhaps Gizmodo did (as I speculated above) photograph the SHIT out of the internals and then had lawyers meet and discuss the return of the property and the possible repercussions Apple could pursue and copies of those 'whats hiding under the shielding' photos were also given to Apples legal counsel and a 'understanding' was hammered out.

So long as those photos remain locked up our 'business' is formally concluded.

Yea maybe a little too cloak-n-dagger but it does answer all the questions...

- Why didn't GIZ take more internal photos!??!! (THEY DID)
- Why didn't GIZ tell us more about the internals!??! (THEY NEEDED TO HOLD BACK)
- Why didn't GIZ publish those photos (if they did take them)... (THEY WERE BEING USED AS LEVERAGE)

Now some might scream thats bribery and maybe it is... but GIZ had nothing to loose.. if Apple said SCREW YOU we are going after you with both barrels loaded. Then GIZ could then post the more revealing internal pics and make as much money as they possibly could...

Hey if Apple was gonna go after them anyway additional pics wouldn't make things any more lawbreaking... Back to my bank robbery analogy, if stealing 999.99 or 9.999,999.99 is still going to bring the same penalty then go for it. I think in most/all cases robbing a bank is a federal offense and the only thing that might reduce or increase the possible jail time is having deadly weapons (hidden or not) and of course if you injure or kill someone in the process of robbing the bank (hostages etc etc etc).

I for one am starting to believe that the 'slideshow' ended where it did as a 'get out of jail free' card and Apple accepted the terms.

It's more logical that they didn't completely disassemble the device out of fears that they couldn't get it back together (they were planning on returning it) and that they couldn't identify all of the parts they could see and felt there was no point in posting the images. They did state that there were many unlabeled parts. I guess your backroom deal theory is more exciting though.

I wouldn't be surprised to see a court case after the iPhone is launched. Doing so before would be a public confirmation of the very trade secrets they want to protect.

I am still a little puzzled why they didn't even discuss one of the most talked about items from the WeiPhone pics last week. The mention the battery being bigger, but they don't mention if it is user accessible/replaceable. That seems like an odd omission considering the interest in that as a feature.

"My 8th grade math teacher once said: "You can't help it if you're dumb, you are born that way. But stupid is self inflicted."" -Hiro.

I am still a little puzzled why they didn't even discuss one of the most talked about items from the WeiPhone pics last week. The mention the battery being bigger, but they don't mention if it is user accessible/replaceable. That seems like an odd omission considering the interest in that as a feature.

I see no evidence in the Giz pics that the battery is user replaceable.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

They don't, and that is what is strange. The pics from before the Giz story, seemed to show a removable battery. So, why didn't Giz at least confirm that it is not?

That is what I was saying in another thread. There are too many components connected to the area that would be the battery door. I think we're seeing brace point for other things. The top being the IR Tx I speculated on and the pin hole being a noise cancelation mic.

Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"

They don't, and that is what is strange. The pics from before the Giz story, seemed to show a removable battery. So, why didn't Giz at least confirm that it is not?

I'm not convinced that the pinhole next to the headphone jack was ever a battery cover release. The two links just show the same thing so it's not like it was additional proof. Gizmodo even commented that they thought the pinhole was a 2nd mic for noise cancellation.

There is no "improper means" . It was not "stolen". Some dumbass took it out in public and left it on a bar stool and left the premises. It was not taken from his bag, it was not acquired on Apple's property. It was not even discovered to be a prototype upon finding.

I assume AI pays its sources of leaks and info. Does that fall under "bribery, misrepresentation, breach or inducement of a breach of a duty to maintain secrecy" . How is that different from what Gizmodo did? Maybe Kasper should be sent to jail then, or at least shut down the site.

Under the law, failure to turn lost goods over to the authorities is considered stealing. Selling said goods is yet another step above & beyond.

Under your logic if you left your credit card at a bar & someone took it & sold it for $5,000 you'd be perfectly ok with that? To many people in this world don't use the brain God gave them.